| ultracentrifugation |
density- and size-based sequential separations |
• appropriate for large-volume
samples |
• high equipment cost |
| |
|
• markers not introduced |
• labor-intensive |
| |
|
• cost-effective |
• potential damage of
exosomes |
| |
|
|
• low yield |
| ultrafiltration |
using a membrane filter with a defined size-exclusion
limit or molecular
weight cutoff |
• low cost |
• potential damage of
exosomes |
| |
|
• time efficient |
• membrane clogging and
blockage |
| |
|
• simple |
|
| immunoaffinity |
exosome capture based on antigen–antibody-specific recognition and
binding |
• high specificity |
• potential damage of
exosome integrity |
| |
|
• simple |
• expensive reagents |
| |
|
• scalability |
• non-specific binding |
| polymer
precipitation |
hydrophilic water-excluding polymer adhering
and precipitating
exosomes |
• broad applicability |
• lack of specificity
and selectivity |
| |
|
• simple and rapid |
• low purity |
| |
|
• no exosome deformation |
• contamination with
polymers |
| microfluidics |
immunoaffinity,
size, density |
• high efficiency |
• large volumes of starting
materials |
| |
|
• fast processing |
• low sample capacity |
| |
|
• good portability |
|
| |
|
• easy automation
and
integration |
|
| size-exclusion
chromatography |
exosome separation based on hydrodynamic
radii |
• preserve biological
activity |
• potential contamination |
| |
|
• no preprocessing |
• high equipment cost |
| |
|
• high yield |
|
